[Kant and Aesthetics]

"Now you've changed your position. Your earlier statement was that my painting's anatomy "is lacking where the photograph lacks" -- you were asserting that the photograph that you allege that I copied had somehow inaccurately recorded human anatomy, and that I, not having your expertise in anatomy, failed to recognize these errors that reality had perpetrated, and therefore foolishly copied them!"

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't express myself well. What I meant was that there were probably areas in the photograph of the nude you were working from that were unclear or did not give you enough information. This results in anatomical errors because there's no knowledge of artistic anatomy to supply you with the needed information independent of the photograph.

"Heh. I wasn't talking about his use of "modern things," but of the modernist influence on his compositions."

Yes, I understood what you were asserting regarding the supposed influence of the "modern sense of design" on Jeff's work, but as I said, it isn't really "modern". The same principles of light and shadow, form and flow, are present in traditional works as well. Good composition is good composition, and is timeless, not "modern". You are confusing externals with underlying design structures. My comments about the subjects used was simply an additional comment about modern externals -- I like Jeff's use of them.

"You're basically a blind man angrily telling others that they can't see because you can't see."

No, I'm a person who feels quite sorry for you -- you have talent and a good sense of design and just need to develop those further. But you have obviously been "educated" right out of common sense: a Pollock has little in common with a Velasquez, other than both using paint. The Pollock is basically an "up yours" gesture to the Velasquez, to fine art. Still, that's what you were expected to absorb and believe, and you have obeyed. And it is always a hell of a lot easier to go along with the crowd.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"Are you now trying to pose as an authority on photography? If so, why is it that you're not aware of the fact that photography is no less sensitive to color and value than the human eye? Why don't you know that photography can present a wider range of color and value than painting can?"

I don't think one needs to be an authority on photography to be aware of the differences between how the eyes take in visual information and how a camera records it. I'm sure most people have had the experience of being moved by a particular scene, only to be disappointed at photographs taken of it. The human mind is selective: it takes in important details and ignores others. This is one reason why artists need to be careful when using photographs as reference. The other reason is color -- there is usually a lot more color and light in shadow areas than what photographs show. This is what shows up the most in artists who have little experience in plein air painting -- the use of color is photograph-based and it shows. Using photography as one's sole reference takes far less skill than working from life or with a combination of both, so I understand your defensiveness.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"Avila, does Larson become as enraged as you do about others' differing tastes and responses to art?"

He has no time for Jackson Pollock, I can tell you that, or any other of his kind. As for rage, well, he's a mellow guy.

Within the broad category of art, we all have differing tastes and responses. Rubens, for example, has no appeal for me, or El Greco. Yet they are great artists who produced great work, and the same principles of order, workmanship, and intelligibility are in play, regardless of subject or style. The stuff that Pollock and his kind produce is simply unrelated to those principles. It's a different beast altogether -- perhaps it's best thought of as "decoration".

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"I didn't say that realism was dead. In fact, I said " I see a lot of contemporary realism that earns attention, respect, fame and money." What I said was that Classical Realism is dead."

Define "classical realism" -- how does it differ from realism? Be concise...

"So, your theory is that every work of modern art is nothing but an attempt to "shock" people?"

No, most of it is simply tired and mediocre. The stuff that makes the news is designed to shock, and it serves to "rally the troops" -- apologists for modernism can pretend to stand firm against the evil puritanical forces that threaten censorship -- quite bracing stuff.

"That shows what you know. I have not copied photographs."

I don't believe you for a second. Your work has the signature of being copied from photographs -- not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, as long as the artist is aware of the limitations of the camera in regard to values and color.

"Heh. I love the elitism of the notion that "copying photographs" is a bad thing, but slavishly copying the scene one has staged in front of oneself is good."

Again, it's not inherently bad, but the artist needs to be aware of the camera's limitations. Nor did I suggest that the only proper method for the artists is to "slavishly" copy what is in front of him. You are displaying your lack of understanding of traditional methods and motivations. That's understandable -- your education has been in modernism, which is inherently at odds with art as understood through most of man's history.

"Beautiful work. Most of it appears to be much more Impressionistic than Classical Realist. I think his best work is that which deviates from the formulae of the atelier."

Once again you are showing your misunderstanding of the term "Classical Realism", if you see his work as more "impressionistic" -- it also shows a muddled but modern understanding of the term "impressionism". Velasaquez and Vermeer, for example, were supreme impressionistic painters. Jeff's work doesn't "deviate" from the "formula of the atelier" -- the atelier is a training ground to equip the artist for his avenue of expression. The atelier training gives an artist tools, not a formula. Jeff taught at a number of ateliers -- really, you don't know what you're talking about.

"Again, the painting is not copied from a photo."

Yeah, sure....

"But that is a cute comment (that anatomy can be lacking where a photograph lacks it). In other words, the reality of human anatomy that a camera records is "lacking" compared to the rules of anatomy that Classical Realists are trained to obey?"

You misunderstood what I am trying to say. In your nude, I see some anatomical errors. Nothing big, mind you, but what they tell me is that you haven't studied artistic anatomy to any great extent. You can sneer at "Classical Realists" being "trained to obey", but then you would have to sneer at virtually all of the great artists, schools, and ateliers of the past, up until the late 1800s, because studying the human form has always been an important part of an artist's formation. Now it's not taught in art schools to any great degree, and it's easy to see why: why bother? If art is simply anything an artist spits (as a famous modern artist asserted) then there is no "good" drawing or "bad" drawing. Why do the work of drawing, when there aren't any standards?

"By the way, it's interesting how many of Larson's paintings have compositions that are influenced by modernism. Old-world academic masters would be shocked and outraged at his sense of design."

Hardly. The "modern sense of design" you see is there in the work of the "old-world academic masters", but the poorly-formed eye can't get past the superficial differences. Jeff's sense of design is quite personal, and his use of modern things (cardboard, etc.) is simply a continuation of the still-life artist's desire to make the commonplace beautiful. It comes off as quirky, perhaps, but I think it's not unreasonable to think that a Chardin, for example, might have enjoyed painting foam blocks and cardboard egg crates if he had them around.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"I can understand the concerns of the opponents of the Classical Realists. Classical Realism is dead. It's formulaic, and it's rarely anything new, either in style, composition or content. More often than not, it's basically repainting what's been painted thousands and thousands of times before."

Far from being dead, realism is alive and well and thriving -- it's modernism that has nothing left to say. It's left to simply try to shock, which is increasingly difficult in this dead age.

Nor does any of your work represent anything that hasn't "been painted thousands and thousands of times before" -- you have merely copied photographs whereas the classical realists would work from life.

I have to agree with you about Gjertson's work -- there is often a rigidity about his figures. I much prefer the work of a classmate of mine: http://www.jeffreytlarson.com/about.asp

"If by "improve" my work, you mean that I'd be more likely to conform to the formulaic traditions and rules of classicism, that wouldn't be my idea of an "improvement."

No, actually what I had would be the improved sensitivity to color and value that would come from direct observation of life, instead of slavishly copying a photograph. Also the artistic anatomy courses would strengthen your form, which I see is lacking where the photograph lacks (case in point your nude).

[Kant and Aesthetics]

I can only spare the time to answer this in bits and pieces, so be patient.

"I just think that you have an exaggerated appraisal of what that experience adds up to. You imagine that you're an authority."

What's the exagerration? I have been a painter all of my life, and have taught for many years as well. The latter experience has provided me with insight into the role of natural talent, the role of proper instruction, etc. Yes, I do think of myself as an authority. Likewise, if someone I knew worked as a marine biologist all of his life, I'd expect him to be an authority on the subject. It simply doesn't seem far-fetched.

"People often have a very over-inflated opinion of their own abilities, tastes and jugdments."

Very true --- look in the mirror.

"Ah, so others are only so-called "experts," but you're the real deal?"

Thankfully, I was trained in the atelier system, and thus was spared the relativism and faddishness of the modern art school, which unfortunately has led otherwise sane and talented individuals to distrust their own eyes.

"The only differences from Rand's statement are that I'm not "helplessly bewildered" that you don't experience what I do, and that you seem to be quite upset by the notion that someone might be able to experience what you can't."

Perplexed, really. Gammell speculated that it the appeal of modern art was a replacement for religion: people desire mystery in their lives, a select community apart from others which shares their "faith", religious-like feelings and experiences when in front of the "mystery", and the intense desire to defend it. Some of that seems right on.....

Let me give you an example of the last item on that list: the Minneapolis Institute of Arts has a program called "The Foot in the Door Show". The program grants exhibit space and promotional materials to up-and-coming artists, who are selected by a panel of artists in the community. Work done in the tradition of classical realism were ALWAYS rejected. Several years ago, a couple of atelier-trained artists somehow managed to make it on the panel, though they lacked a majority. Word got out that those artists were Classical Realists, and they had another candidate for the panel (which would have given them either a majority or an equal vote -- can't remember which). The modernists were so afraid that ANY traditional work be exhibited there that they called a meeting. As an atelier-trained artist, I showed up to lend support. The modernists were so determined to protect their status as THE high priests of art that they shouted down anyone who attempted to speak, stood up and yelled obscenities, and otherwise showed themselves to be fanatics. I couldn't help but think of how "religious" they were in their convictions, and we were treated as heretics.

"You don't know what you're talking about."

I'm afraid I do.

"But I do know, from reading what you've written here, that you're very emotionally invested in this issue, and that you're very upset about the idea of others having more knowledge and sensitivity to the visual arts than you do, and that you're so enraged by it that you have to accuse others of being "brainwashed" and such. Very defensive and angry."

Of course I'm emotionally invested -- this is my vocation and my passion, after all. And no, I'm not upset by others having more knowledge and sensitivity than I do (there are many artists whose work I admire -- no doubt they surpass me in many ways), but rather I simply have no patience for the relativistic nonsense and pseudo-intellectual drivel that accompanies modern art.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"(what's the old saying? "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach"?)."

Many great artists of the past (Michelangelo, Jacques Louis David, etc.) taught students, first via the apprenticeship system and then by the atelier system. The atelier system still survives, by the way, and I would recommend it to you. You would improve your work immensely.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"That's what I thought. Your position is that you have no proof that four-year olds can create the equivalent of a Pollock, but that you should be taken as an authority because you assert, also without any proof, that you have "considerable experience."

Well, that's the Internet for you -- one can assert just about anything, and obviously there's no way to "prove" the truth of it. I can't "make" you believe what I'm saying, and if you want to believe that I'm just making up my experience, you go ahead. But there's no point in discussing anything with anyone who won't grant you the willingness to take you at your word.

"He's also a member here at OO":

Thanks for the links. I'm not at all familiar with the guy, or his work. By the way, I'm not an Objectivist -- I was only asking whether or not he was an Objectivist because you had used the term "Objectivist artists" and I didn't see that stated on the link you had initially provided.

"It could be taken by you to be a Pollock, and by people who share your tastes and level of knowledge."

Here you display a trait quite common amongst modern art apologists -- elitism. When a person states that the emperor is wearing no clothes, the typical response is to attack the person's ability to see and understand the garbage in question. And it works, most of the time -- no one wants to be considered a Philistine, and most people are intimidated by the so-called "experts" in the field of the arts. A person has to be brainwashed to believe that Pollock's work has any real value, or that one Pollock can be "better" than another Pollock. Or that similar scribblings by a four-year old can be shown to be far, far below whatever level Pollock is alleged to have achieved.

"It's really not that amazing of a feat for me to have that knowledge."

You know next to nothing about me.

"It's very easy these days to post images online. It should be extremely easy for a visual arts authority."

No doubt. However, I am a bit of a Luddite, nor have I had any need to post images online.

"That sounds like a copout to me. I think you're bluffing. Are you afraid that posting samples of your work will reveal how little you know, and that I'll be able to point to your work and clearly identify, for all to see, the areas in which you lack knowledge?"

No. And if you think Pollock's paintings have any worth, your ability to point out anything is questionable.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"Show me proof. Show me video footage of four-year-olds achieving the graphic rhythm of a Pollock."

I've never assigned any such project, so no video exists. My assertion is based on my considerable experience with teaching kids and adults, and their abilities -- granted, a variety of natural abilities exist, but if given a bit of guidance, I have no doubt that anyone could paint a Pollock.

"Here's one example. He failed miserably in his attempt to show that "anyone can Pollock."

So this guy is an Objectivist artist? Where does it state that? Anyway, I wouldn't say that he "failed miserably" -- far from it. It could be taken for a Pollock, especially one of his looser, dribblier works.

"I didn't say that you made such a claim. I was only suggesting that you act as if your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and psychological health."

That's quite a stretch, especially given that I haven't posted that much on this subject. But yet you claim to have knowledge of how I act -- amazing!

"So then are you saying that if I were to post a variety of melodies, some of which were created by kids, and some of which were created by professional composers, and I were to give you no access to any "outside considerations" (such as the names of the pieces of music or the names of the composers, etc.), you believe that you'd be able to identify which melodies were created by the children and which were created by the adults...."

You need to pay attention to what I actually write. I did not make the distinction between children and adults, I made the distinction between a kid whistling a melody of his own making and a Mozart (unless, as I stated, the kid happened to be as gifted as Mozart). I have no doubt that some kid's melodies would be far preferable to than the "work" of some adult composers who operate on the same level as modern visual artists -- garbage, in other words (John Cage's 4'33", for example). With that exception aside, yes, I could tell the difference between a composition of some kid and a Mozart.

"and you believe that you'd be able to identify the "artists' meanings" in adults' compositions?"

Where do you get that from? I didn't claim any such thing.

"With your listing of your teaching and painting experience, it sounds as if you want to be taken as an authority."

Gee, ya think?? Honestly, it's a matter of common sense: if I want to know more about current trends and thinking in eye surgery, I regard the opinion of eye surgeons of more value than, say, a neighbor's whose field is mathematics. If I want informed opinions about playing music, I will ask a professional musician, not a wanna-be.

"I feel exactly the same way: I'd need to see your work before taking any of your assertions seriously. Let's see what you've got."

Sorry, but I don't have anything online. But to be frank, your opinion of my work would be of no importance to me whatsoever anyway, as anyone who regards Pollock as a serious, talented artist is one whose assessements are warped and worthless.

"The above is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say that "you act as if your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and psychological health." Your attempt to universalize your own lack of response by stating how "one" will respond to a work of art is hilarious."

Whatever. Laugh away. Personally, I put more value on the opinions of those who are skilled in their fields, and I don't have any time for the musings of wanna-be artists and theorists. (To quote Leonardo da Vinci: "The supreme tragedy is when theory outstrips performance".)

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"A four-year-old could not paint a Pollock."

I've taught art from the fourth grade level to adults. I assure you, anyone can paint a Pollock.

"I've seen adult Objectivist artists who can't paint a Pollock."

Any names? I only know of one self-styled "Objectivist artist", and he hasn't tried to paint a Pollock.

"No, I think that if you believe that your own personal lack of response to one art form or another is the standard of objectivity and of psychological health, then you're the one who has "drunk the Kool-Aid."

I don't claim that my "personal lack of response" is the standard of objectivity and of psychological health. Straw man.

"And, using your method, it must be true that the abstract lines, shapes, colors and relationships in architecture can't possibly qualify as art next to a Velasquez painting. After all, a four-year-old playing with wooden blocks can create structures that are no less objectively intelligible as art than buildings created by adult architects."

"My method"? What is my "method"? As for the rest of your statement, different art forms have differing criteria.

"Any kid can invent a melody, and his melody would be no less objectively meaningful than those of adult composers. Music is therefore pure relativism by your standards."

I don't agre with your premises. A kid whistling a melody of his own making is hardly on the same level as a Mozart -- unless, of course, that kid happens to be as gifted as Mozart was. And I don't agree that music is pure relativism at all.

The fact that you may be incapable of recognizing certain talents and skills doesn't mean they don't exist.

I've been a painter all my life. I know talent when I see it, no matter what particular style or genre it is exhibited in. And I am also quite capable of recognizing crap and mediocrity as well -- and much of modern "art" is just that -- pretentious crap. I will say that some of it can be considered "decorative" -- one might buy and display it because it has colors that please one's taste or matches one's decor.

[Kant and Aesthetics]

"If other, more "modern" artists have chosen to abstract different aspects of reality for similar consideration, such as line, shape, and color, do I have any good reason for dismissing that out of hand?"

Well, here's one: if a four-year old can do it, it isn't in the same category as what was, for centuries, considered a demanding profession that required prodigious quantities of natural talent and ability, plus long and disciplined training. A four-year old could paint a Jackson Pollock, but only Velasquez could paint a Velasquez. If you look at a Velasquez and a Jackson Pollock and see them as equal but different examples of fine art, then you have already drunk the koolaid.

The emperor is wearing no clothes -- modern "art" is simply the visual expression of pure relativism: no standards, no skill or talent required, and a sad reliance on shock to get noticed.

[The Value Of Small Talk]

"Usually it's about badmouthing another person or group, i.e. gossip. Every single thing they say is a bromide. I cringe on the inside when I hear stuff like 'you should lie all the time to women to keep them with you'."

The term "small talk" usually means chatting about trivial items such as the weather, sports teams, and the like. What you're describing is gossip, which is entirely different matter -- it can be destructive and should not be engaged in, especially in the work place. Keeping oneself out of gossipy conversations is a real plus, and something that can actually advance your position.

"People you've known your whole life, however, you can be a little more certain about."

More certain, yes. Completely certain, no. I'm always amazed at how people I have known for most of my life (spouse, parents, siblings) can still surprise me with facets of their personality or information about themselves that I didn't know. People are deeper than you think (well, some are).

[The Value Of Small Talk]

"my mind about them is made up - my moral judgment of them is complete - I know exactly what they're thinking and how they're going to deal with (if at all) the problems that will come about, I know their relationship to reality (and how poor it is) - and yes, that applies to almost all of my relatives"

Omniscient, eh? I didn't know mere humans had such infallible abilities....

I would agree with much of what Chris S. had to say. You asked if you should learn how to make small talk to enhance work relationships, and I would say yes -- think of small talk as a kind of social "grease" (and like grease, too much is not a good thing). If something enhances your work relationships, then why not?

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"Muslims "adjust" their religion the same way Christians do: by compromising religious tenets when they don't suit their non-religious values."

I was referring to orthodox, observant Christians and Muslims (meaning, those that follow the tenets of their religious faith) who do not compromise their religious tenets.

"That's the "self-correcting mechanism" in Christianity."

No, what you describe is the effect of secularization on some Christians.

"The Bible doesn't really allow for sex before marriage, for gay Christians, for divorce, or for any kind of tolerance of those things. Christians accept those things despite the Bible, not because of it."

Observant Christians do not accept those things. Again, I'm assuming we're talking about observant Christians and Muslims.

And the same can happen with Muslims. And it is happening, even in Muslim countries.

Actually, the worldwide trend has been for greater adherence to radical Islam, not less. Conversion to Islam in Britain, for example, has rapidly increased (watered-down, secularized Christianity has little appeal if you're looking for something meaningful), and Sharia law is gaining hold in a number of European countries. The war in Iraq is a case in point: I believe the idea was that if we (the US) could install a Western-style democracy in a Muslim area, and show the folks the delights of cold beer and hot women, that they would all drop or water down their silly old Muslim ways and go on to vote to keep the cold beer and hot women coming. Once their neighbors saw how much fun Western materialism was, they'd all throw the religious zealots out and join the party. WRONG.

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"So someone wants to make an Islamic bank in Hungary and we automatically qualify as a nation with Sharia even though the bank doesn't even exist yet."

You just go on believing that there's nothing wrong, nothing to worry about, nothing to see here.....long may it last for you.

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"I remember that Muslims controlled one third of my country for 150 years.

Despite that there's no Sharia in Hungary today."

Not true: http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/sharia-creeps-into-hungary/

"I also remember that Christians did their own 'Jihads' a few hundred years before the pirates came."

Here we go again with the usual Crusades and Inquisition myths. Here's some correctives from a historian: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

"Look, if Christianity could change so can Islam".

There already are quite a number of different kinds of Muslims. Obviously the vast majority aren't interested in jihad, but given that there are about a billion Muslims, even the small percentage of those who are committed to jihad constitutes a troubling large number, as evidenced by the large number of people killed by them each year in all parts of the world. Nor do you take into account a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam -- there is no call to kill one's enemies in the name of Christianity found in the New Testament. That is not true of the Koran. And no, Islam cannot change, as its adherents will tell you -- there is no capacity, as there is in Christianity, for development in doctrine (the possibility would be considered blasphemous). There is, in fact, no

self-correcting capacity for change in Islam.

"If this problem will be solved it won't be with the force of arms."

Well, maybe it will be solved with the force of explosives. Iran simply cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons given its idealogy. Perhaps it can be dealt with through sanctions, but they don't have a very successful track record. Look, we could remove ourselves entirely from the Middle East scene, and we would still be on the receiving end of a nuclear weapon from Iran (after they nuke Israel, of course). Britain would be next.

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"The government reports on events accurately all the time."

Ummmmm, you're joking, right??

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"I feel that US intervention in the Middle East has only brought more fuel to the fire of Islamism."

Islam has a problem with the West, US intervention or not. They were first on our radar in the early days of this country -- the Barbary pirates, remember? That was long before the US was a major colonizing, intervening force anywhere. And as you might have noticed, Islam is busily waging jihad in countries with no interventionist policies to give them a fig leaf. The idea that you can retreat from the cesspool of the Middle East and the jihadists will go away and leave us alone is dangerously naive - though we are in serious decline, we are still the major force on the world scene, culturally, economically, and militarily. We're a big target, and we symbolize, at least to some extent, the "West". The rest of the world is not going to leave us alone, no matter what we do.

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"Why you are comparing Imperial Japan to Islamist groups is beyond me, however."

And it's beyond me to comprehend why you can't see the similarities: both cultures (Islam, Imperial Japan) glorify/glorified suicide, both as an instrument of war and as an honorable act, and who then conduct/conducted war accordingly. The possibility or even likelihood of death, either as an individual or as a culture, is/was of no deterrence.

"This is a pretty strong claim. I have not seen evidence that Iranian government wishes to see it's own destruction. If you have any please feel free to provide it."

Well, here goes, a statement saying how all Muslims want to meet their Maker, and how: "Everybody wants to meet Allah as a martyr. We have no fear… the enemy – especially the Zionist enemy – will not dare take this cowardly step (attacking Iran's Nuclear facilities). This could spell the end of Israel." [1] (February 8, 2010)" -- Foreign Affairs Minister, Ali-Akbar Salehi

"Suicide is clearly forbidden in Islam, but the permissibility of martyrdom ops (Istishhad) is an altogether different topic, with scholars being split on the issue but has more support in general."

Of course, suicide in despair is forbidden in Islam. That hasn't been an issue, has it? Get real! I mean, civilians around the world aren't quaking in their boots thinking of all of those despondant Muslims who might quietly take their own lives - no, it's the "martyrs" who give them pause. In Christianity and other faiths, "martyrs" are those who were (involuntarily) killed because of their beliefs. "Martyrs" in Islam however, means those who voluntarily killed others - and themselves - because of their faith.

"I have not seen any articles or writing that suggests that Islam is the reason for the higher use of suicide terrorism, as there have been other groups that have used it in the past"

Well, how nice for you that you've managed to be oblivious to the connection between Islam and the use of suicide terrorism. The articles and writing are out there, but obviously you are busy elsewhere......

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"No more risky than the USSR situation, in which case they could have obliterated our country even if we retaliated, instead of making a dead zone out of a single city (if they are lucky, and if they have a death wish for their own country)."

The situation with the USSR was entirely different, and would also be different with other major players today such as, say, the Chinese: Islamists are fond of saying that they love death more than the West loves life. Their use of suicide bombers is evidence that they really mean what they say -- their idealogy glorifies suicide. The historical analogy that comes to mind is Imperial Japan: it was not certain, even after we dropped the first bomb on them, that they were going to surrender. Half of the war cabinet wanted to press on and have every Japanese citizen -- man, woman and child -- resist the US forces in the case of invasion, with the result that their population would have been largely wiped out. It was the Emperor finally giving in that changed the course and allowed surrender. But until that time, the Japanese used suicide as a form of warfare on land and sea, with kamikaze pilots and foot soldiers loaded with explosives. The Soviets were never so inclined, and I don't think the Chinese are either. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) works only when the opponent is not willing to be destroyed -- in the case of the Islamists, they welcome death (72 ripe virgins, after all) and so mutually assured destruction is not effective.

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"Proxy attacks were a specialty of the CIA and now were are blaming the Arabs for becoming copycats."

Ah, the loathesome doctrine of moral equivalence...

[Kant and Aesthetics]

Mikee,

Thanks for the quotes. However, I believe that Kant's affect on modernist aesthetics is simply given too much weight, regardless of what those quotes assert. It might be true that in academic circles his views may have shaped some intellectuals in his day, but the ascent of modern art (speaking here only of the visual arts)on the purely practical level -- what painters actaully produce -- has far more to do with the prevailing attitudes of the late Impressionist painters on the "academic" approach to painting; the subsequent destruction of teaching methods; and the rise of the art critic as an arbiter of taste. The best work on the subject is "Twilight of Painting" by R.H. Ives Gammell. He was an accomplished painter -- most of the opinions on this subject are made by non-artists.

[Problem with capitalism]

"the problem is that as i work with these groups more and more it has become clear that they spend the bulk for their money not on finding ways to make better products or more competitive prices. it is spent primarily on marketing."

"By marketing i dont just mean product placement and billboards. they employ psychologists to show them how to position products to be subconsciously attractive to clients they use this to base their colors, shapes, words, and even ingredients."

If these companies found that making better products made them more money, then they would make better products. That they spend their money on marketing instead is an indication that it is more profitable to do so. Though I don't know this as a fact, I suspect that there's little difference in the effectiveness and quality of these kinds of products anyway -- if so, then it makes perfect sense to differentiate oneself from one's competitiors by marketing if qualitative differences in the products are not noticeable by the average consumer.

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"We recognize how the mystic principles of Christianity and other religions have directly influenced our policies of altruism and collectivism in the economic sense."

I just now noticed this beginning sentence in the first thread, and want to examine this a bit more closely, as I don't think it's a valid premise. I suspect that altruistic principles (the concept of a "common good"; the attribution of heroism to those who sacrifice themselves to it; etc.) are not so much the result of the influence of religion as they are basic survival methods which were then adopted by various religions and enshrined in their ethical principles. Primitive man, for example, was born into a society (at the very least a family), and his survival was dependent upon a mother who survived, and her survival was likely dependent, given that females are generally not as physically strong as males, on her mate's protection. In non-human life, the survival of the species seems to be the driving force, which in fact often endangers the survival of individuals. Something similar would appear to be the case with humans: infants would not have survived unless parents sacrificed, at least to some extent, for them (the "good" being, I suppose, the continuation of the genetic material of the parents). Groups of extended families would then band together and share in the increased security that came with numbers -- or at least with an increase in those capable of defending the others. Anyway, it would appear, then, that altruistic instincts are a built-in survival mechanism. There hasn't been any society, ancient or modern, that hasn't practiced it and/or made heroes of those exemplify those altruistic principles. Even the Greeks required their wealthy citizens to "give back" -- entirely at their own cost -- to the society as a whole (leitourgia). I don't think it's a product of religious belief, and so I don't think you can get rid of it society-wide, though no doubt a few individuals are able to.

Which is why what Daniel writes above, "Let's spread the message of Rand over the Islamic world" is so incredibly naive. First off, religion is VERY important to these folks, with atheists being despised, if anything, more than Christians and Jews. Do you think an atheist philosophy such as Objectivism has any chance at all??? And if Objectivism hasn't been able to win any traction in the West, despite it being far more secular (I think the reason it doesn't get far here is because of what I wrote above: I think altruism is hard-wired into us as a species), what makes you think it has any chance to succeed in an Islamic country?

[Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US]

"Daniel, the US offers Israel rewards for acting a certain way. This is a tool of diplomacy, and using it is not a violation of sovereignty."

I agree.

"I don't believe Iran will detonate a nuclear device."

That is a seriously risky belief. I definitely believe that they will, because of their adherence to Islam. Death, individually or en masse, is no deterrence at all.